Greeks knew that vote quality was better than vote quantity.

>>1448801

They also understood that voting for your leaders is not democratic but oligarchic, since the rich and powerful have greater influence than the poor. This is why they practiced sortition, or appointment by lot, wherein government officials were randomly chosen from a pool of all eligible citizens. We still do this when we pick our juries, we need to return to selecting at least some of our top officials this way too.

>>1448855
Counterpoint: the rich and powerful ought to have more of a voice in the political system than the average pleb, by virtue of the traits that allow them to be rich and powerful. This in turn provides a huge incentive for the non-rich to become so, and feed a positive capitalist system of value-creation.
.
When people talk about the "failures of democracy" or sigh with embarrassment and say "these people are allowed to vote", they are speaking accurately of the typical, colossally uninformed citizen, who in all likelihood doesn't even have the capacity to run their own life properly. It's the same reason why Rabbis in Judaism are expected to have families.

>>1448876

They already have greater influence in the economic sphere, why should they get such in politics as well? Either you believe all citizens should be politically equal or you support oligarchy, there's no crossover.

>>1448876

*tugs forelock*

>>1448801
this is why universal education was put in place

>>1448894
Politics isn't separate from the economic sphere. You don't suddenly enter a dimension with no currency and no pockets to put it in when you enter the Senate.

>>1448900

It's not completely unconnected but why should the existence of inequality in one sphere mean we should have the same inequality everywhere else? It's a bafflingly nonsensical claim, the kind of thing a well-indoctrinated serf might spout.

>>1448906
Because no conditions have arisen to make the unequal, equal. A NEET is not worth as much as a small business owner.

>>1448801
Their system worked well enough for the few that could vote, sure, for some decades.

It was a crummy system for most of the population, the parts of the population that kept the streets clean and put food on the plate.

>>1448801
Then why don't we try to elevate the common people as a whole?

>>1448947
see
>>1448898

The problem with America is the problem with all modern nation-states. It's an incoherent idea.

The borders and populations of nation-states are basically historically arbitrary (as far as present day persons are concerned), and some ideology has to constantly be adjusted to get people to believe the flag, the army and the government have some kind of benevolent purpose you can identify with.

This ideology is then exploited by the most powerful members of the nation-state for the purpose of furthering individual power.

>>1448936

If you don't believe in the political equality of all citizens then democracy is not the system for you.

>>1448947
Every nation needs it's plebs.

>>1448801
Consider that even the citizens in those days were less literate as a whole than the general population today.

http://www.persee.fr/doc/reg_0035-2039_1966_num_79_376_3884

Several philosophers complained that the citizens were just plain ignorant. Only the rich were expected to receive a passable education, education which was often left to slaves rather than actually politically active citizens. And the free teachers, the philosophers and the sophists, criticized the democracy of those days or weren't even citizens themselves, respectively.

>>1448876
By statistical bias, you cannot have more rich than the poor.

By virtue rich should be excluded from the voting process to allow fair competition.

>>1448898
It's great that it doesn't involve philosophy or politics in general then

>>1448801
Just limit voting to people who are actually smart, the smaller the voting pool the less effort electoral seasons have make in creating campaigns its saves money.

>>1448966
Why not? Democracy isn't all or nothing, you can have a democratic society with very non-democratic elements in it.

>>1449102
>people who are actually smart
There's a Greek homeless guy with a reported IQ of 200, while Feynman was barely above average at 110 and accomplished infinitely more than Papadapalous ever could. How are you going to determine and codify signs of intelligence to adjust the voting pool?

>>1448801
Can we just go back to absolute monarchies already?

An aristocracy would also be good.

File: 1459653779702.png (3KB, 469x447px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 469x447px

>>1449129
Furthermore, how relevant is abstract "intelligence" if it offers nothing to society? We value intelligence because we value the CONSEQUENCES of intelligence, as art, science, medicine, stability, improved standards of living, etc., not because intelligence itself is a self-sufficient value.

Clearly, the answer is to agree on a separate, external, quantifiable value that other, positive traits like intelligence (or creativity, athleticism, beauty...etc.) may be graded upon.

>>1449129
Perhaps it's about education, not "measured" intelligence. There is old people from rural backgrounds who always voted X because that's what their parents always did. There's also people who vote Y because somebody paid him.

>>1449140
Damn, no. Bloodline succession for the grace of (insert your god here)...

>>1449129
Does having 110 IQ really make you just "barely" above average in terms of intellectual capacity? East Asians score just 6 points above whites on average and people are always talking about how smart they are, meanwhile western blacks score like 15 points below whites, and common perception of blacks, the state of ghettos etc. would suggest that's probably a bit more than barely below average. If IQ is a major contributing factor, anyway.

>>1449117

Because if you don't want the demos to be the rulers, then why would you champion democracy? Oligarchy is the system you're looking for.

>>1449171
>Does having 110 IQ really make you just "barely" above average in terms of intellectual capacity?

Yes, the range of average for whites in 90 to 110.

File: 1469162326506.jpg (183KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1024x576px

>>1449179
Is eurasian the definitive mix? Should we promote this instead of any other genetic combination?

>>1449193

It doesn't matter because our technology is very nearly at the point where anyone can select the genetic traits they want their children to have, regardless of their ancestry.

>>1449214
>i have meme tier understanding of history the post

>>1449171
Yes, it does. IQ isn't even the point here, it's the notion of intelligence being extremely difficult to quantify on a chart and ascribe a value to, thus the discrepancy of achievement between homeless man and scientist.

>>1448876

>by virtue of the traits that allow them to be rich and powerful.

What about inheritance? You can make an argument for self-made men, but even that requires a healthy dose of luck rather than just ability. For every competent self-made millionaire there are dozens of competent people who were just unlucky, the gambling involved in getting rich isn't to be underestimated.

The luck factor is even bigger when people get rich by day trading, which is statistically just glorified gambling where even the most reputable traders generally aren't that far above average in beating the market.

>>1449232
>intelligence being extremely difficult to quantify on a chart and ascribe a value to

But this isn't true, your anecdote notwithstanding. IQ is the single best indicator of your lifetime success, more so than socio-economic status or education level.

How retarded is this idea?

Why couldn't there be a direct democracy with the caveat that you have sort of 'associations' which vote? Generally depending on your career, perhaps a test of competence for membership in that association. So say you're have a lawyer's association, and engineer's association, a farmer's association, etc. Perhaps you could belong to more than one as long as you pass a standardized test of competence in the field (rather than some really general IQ test which feels like it could fuck over a lot of skilled professionals who aren't necessarily highly intelligent).

If you belonged to that association you get a greater weight in your say on issues directly related to it. That way you can generally ensure that the strongest vote is cast by people who are educated on the topic at hand, rather than having doctors who don't know shit about economic policy cast votes on economic policy, lawyers who don't know shit about farming cast votes on agriculture policy, or farmers who don't know shit about healthcare voting on healthcare, etc.

Is the concept inherently flawed? Can it be improved? I'm very wary of direct democracy by virtue of the fact that the average person is a fucking moron and even the most intelligent person isn't educated on every subject they'd be voting on. This seems to offset that, however.

File: 5469R_Paris-hilton.jpg (81KB, 500x600px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 500x600px

>>1449235
Inheritance is substantiated by the original "self-made man", and their legacy of people competent enough to maintain the fortune after them. Paris Hilton, for example, is the heiress of an extremely valuable franchise that affords her a luxurious lifestyle, but she's not a total bimbo and manages a successful business of lingerie, cosmetics and perfumes in turn. The Vanderbilts, on the other hand, used to be one of the most successful "bloodlines", but they have long-since fallen to the wayside from internal incompetence and the inability to compete in their markets.

I don't know enough about stocks and investments to comment on them, but one would imagine the ability to perceive and take advantage of a winning opportunity is half of that "luck" separating hard workers from smart workers.

>>1449140
>I want my country's biggest decisions to be made by an isolated inbred manchild

>>1448938
the gaygreeks plutocrats were all swole from serving in the navy and army, that communist whining means nothing

>>1449265
I already proposed something to reduce the influence of low quality citizens:

Adulthood is granted by passing a multi-disciplinary test, not by arbitrary age. This gives more social rights, like the capability of getting a driving license, vote... (here we introduce the concepts of “pre-citizen” and “citizen”).

>>1449265
>That way you can generally ensure that the strongest vote is cast by people who are educated on the topic at hand, rather than having doctors who don't know shit about economic policy cast votes on economic policy, lawyers who don't know shit about farming cast votes on agriculture policy, or farmers who don't know shit about healthcare voting on healthcare, etc.

We circumvent that obstacle by permitting firms, corporations and special-interest groups to lobby politicians representing for their respective fields of expertise. This way agriculturalists accurately represent agriculture, and so on, limited only by the financial acumen and prestige of their organizations.

The purer form of what you're talking about, where "politicians" are cut out altogether, sounds like technocracy.

>>1449267

Do you not think that Paris also runs a successful business because she had a fuckton of fame and startup money right off the bat?

The thing about being born into wealth is that you have every advantage at being successful, and then people attribute it to some sort of intelligence or genetic propensity to success. Now, if the 'heir' is stripped of the entire fortune and starts a new business from total scratch (no big name, none of daddy's business contacts, no big bank account to streamline a startup, etc) we'll see how much of it is because they're exceptional individuals.

>>1449305

Perhaps the comment on special-interest groups is true, but some of these special interest groups are inherently wealthier (and therefore wield greater influence) than others due to their respective fields.

>>1449248
>IQ is the single best indicator of your lifetime success
Self-control is the best indicator of your success. Though IQ plays a part as well.
>more so than socio-economic status or education level.
Socio-economic status is found to influence your IQ. Higher status = higher IQ.

test

>>1449318
I'll save this pic.

>>1449344
>Self-control is the best indicator of your success. Though IQ plays a part as well.

How are you measuring self-control? IQ is quantifiable, and it's correlation with lifetime success is extremely high, much higher than any other factor.

>Socio-economic status is found to influence your IQ. Higher status = higher IQ.
this is because the people who do well tend to be more intelligent, and thus to have more intelligent children. But your parents social class matters less than your IQ.

>>1449686
So... isn't IQ determined by genetics?

>>1451501
So Flynn effect doesn't real?

>Is this the biggest flaw of our current "democracy"?

There are huge structural issues with how current Parliamentary systems are run, the way it's basically a game between two major parties who care more about their own survival and manipulation rather than representing people is a good example, the way the rich and older generations have basically demographic tyranny in the system is another. Also largely how undemocratic the processes of the parties are, a good example of this recently is Sanders and Corbyn, both completely fucked over by their party and then the party elite going out of the way to fuck over the members then telling them basically to "Deal with it and vote for the lesser evil".

The biggest issue with politics though is the general public doesn't give a single fuck about it for the most part and find it 'boring' and the vast majority of media out there are the mouthpieces of vested interests, even public broadcasters (look at how for example the BBC conspired with the Blairite coupers in their attempt to oust Corbyn and even the ex BBC chair said the organization editorial team was out to destroy him). You also have massive organizations purposely manipulating media "ideals" like the Koch brothers and energy companies wanting Climate change denial conspiracy shit to be given equal weight to real science and thus you get the "false balance" issue occur in the media which further confuses the public.

Because the public gets their knowledge from completely corrupt sources that are invested in the current paradigm, the public simply cannot make informed decisions unless they actually study political science, history, sociology etc and your average pleb only watches the news for the sport section.

File: m'sensei.jpg (165KB, 1032x774px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1032x774px

>>1449318
>>1449647
>I would be an alpha male übermensch if it weren't for normies enslaving me with democracy
>n..no, I totally wouldn't be Chad's serf, i..it'd be the other way around

>>1451623
Nope. Übermensch surpass normie social conventions. They exist besides of democracy/totalitarism/other system...

>>1448876
>by virtue of the traits that allow them to be rich and powerful.
Like many rich today who have done nothing to deserve their wealth other than be born into it?
Nah.

File: 1369134075303.jpg (26KB, 400x449px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 400x449px

>>1451548
You seem to be a smart guy. What are your thoughts on the current political background of Spain? Seems that we're going to have third elections because the old parties don't want to lose their privileged position.

>>1451652
Which system would an actual übermensch thrive under?

It can't be despotism where the economy is shit and he would be competing with countless socios in the same ballpark in terms of ability and some in an already more advantageous position. An übermensch in revolutionary Russia would be thinking about getting money and emigrating to the US.

>>1448801

That picture is the Roman Curia. Not Greek.

>>1448936
Someone who inherited a business is not worth as much as a self-made man.

>>1449171
On an individual level, 10 points above average really isn't that high. On a population level, a certain demographic having just a few points above average, however, means that they'll be disproportionately represented among the top x percent(whether x is 10 or 5 or whatever) which makes it kind of a big deal.

>>1451718
>Which system would an actual übermensch thrive under?

1. A system beyond morals and useless limits.
2. Out of any system.

>>1448801
Holy shit you are retarded. While 5% of Greeks(Athenians, but let's go with Greeks) had "voting rights" the same 5% of Greeks were representatives.

Find me any other democratic state with that amount of representatives to inhabitants, I dare you.

>>1448876
Just that capitalism's ultimate goal is security of the own existence by profit raise and not political fairness for the whole population.

>>1451501
It's PARTIALLY determined by genetics. But your education and your living conditions in general can make a huge difference as well.